<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-04-29&#xA;📝 Original message:On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Mike Hearn &lt;mike at plan99.net&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt; It only works if the majority of hashpower is controlled by attackers, in&#xA;&gt; which case Bitcoin is already doomed. So it doesn&#39;t matter at that point.&#xA;&#xA;These parties wouldn&#39;t generally consider themselves attackers— nor&#xA;would many users (presumably everyone who mines on ghash.io, for&#xA;example)— rather they&#39;d they may consider someone using hashpower&#xA;voting to reassign coins to be an attacker, and reassigning their&#xA;coins instead to be a morally justified and pragmatic response.&#xA;&#xA;I think we&#39;re capable here of discussing the specifics without needing&#xA;to use generalizations which invite definitional arguments... I don&#39;t&#xA;think that bombastic language like doomed helps the dialog.</html></oembed>